Xref: utzoo comp.software-eng:5458 comp.object:3354
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!udel!rochester!rit!cs.rit.edu!mjl
From: mjl@cs.rit.edu (Michael J Lutz)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.object
Subject: Re: Software Engineering (was Re: Documenting OO
Message-ID: <2275@cs.rit.edu>
Date: 22 Apr 91 21:28:46 GMT
Sender: news@cs.rit.edu
Reply-To: mjl@cs.rit.edu
Followup-To: comp.software-eng
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Lines: 87

[My initial posting does not seem to have made it outside of
 Western NY.  My apologies if you've seen this already - mjl ]

This is from an ongoing debate in comp.object, but I thought
it might be of interest to comp.software-eng readers as well - mjl

In article <1991Apr17.172806.23036@visix.com>, amanda@visix.com (Amanda
Walker) writes:
|> ... I am distinguishing between a physical
|>construct and a symbolic one.  What I think of as "engineering" is the
|>application of the physical sciences (principally physics and chemistry,
|>but not exclusively) to the construction of physical devices (or "engines,"
|>hence the term "engineer").  This interpretation is supported by the
|>dictionary definition you [a previous writer] cited.

Dictionarys aren't always the best source of information when it
comes to technical terms.  In particular, if we buy the notion that
engineering is concerned with the construction of physical devices,
what is to become of the Industrial Engineer?  As far as ABET is
concerned, this is an ``engineering discipline'', but IE's are not
directly involved in the design or manufacture of physical devices;
instead, they are most concerned with the processes underlying
these activities -- and this is at least as abstract as software
development.

As I am not an engineer by education, I decided that the best way to
find out what engineering is all about was to find out what *engineers*
say engineering is all about.  This is a meta-question -- we have to
separate what an engineer does from the specific tools he or she uses
in addressing engineering problems.  The problem is compounded by the
fact that engineering typically attracts goal-oriented, precise,
quantitative persons who are not particularly introspective about what
they do and where engineering fits in the grand scheme of things.

However, there are some exceptions (thank God).  I strongly recommend
each of the following to those who want to join debate over what
engineering is and whether software development is, can be, or should
be an engineering discipline:

Shaw, Mary
"Prospects for an Engineering Discipline of Software",
IEEE Software, Vol. 7 No. 6 (Nov. 1990).

Florman, Samuel C.
Existential Pleasures of Engineering.
St. Martin Press, 1976.

Petroski, Henry.
To Engineer is Human : The Role of Failure in Successful Design.
St. Martin's Press, 1985

Koen, Billy Vaughn.
Definition of the Engineering Method.
American Society for Engineering Education, 1985

For the record:

Mary Shaw is on the computer science faculty at Carnegie-Mellon;
she also is involved with at the Software Engineering Institute.

Florman is a civil engineer, and I believe Petroski is as
well (if not, Petroski is a mechanical engineer).

Koen is a chemical engineer by training, but also has held
positions in mechanical engineering departments.  I believe he
is still at U.T. Austin.

Koen's book (actually a pamphlet, costing about $7.00) has
influenced me greatly because:

	a) he writes lucidly and persuasively,

	b) the publication is from the ASEE, and I'm an
	   educator,

	c) the fact that the ASEE publishes and actively
	   promotes the pamphlet in its magazines indicates
	   that at least a few engineers in positions of
	   influence believe Koen has something important
           to say.


---------
Mike Lutz
Rochester Institute of Technology
Rochester, NY 14623-0887
mjl@cs.rit.edu